I'm hoping this thing gets voted down. It's a terrible deal that gives away the only real conservative accomplishment of the last 6 years. Why is Paul Ryan and Boehner willing to cut it open when Obama's not willing to gut the ACA?

It's a terrible deal, and it shows why the Republican leadership needs to be primaried and replaced - Paul Ryan included. I don't care how conservative he makes himself out to be when he so willingly guts our accomplishments, he's acting for the left.

TODAY’S BUDGET AGREEMENT: GOOD POLITICS, MAYBE, BUT NOT GOOD POLICY

The current continuing resolution on federal spending expires in January, and Paul Ryan (on behalf of the Republican House) has been negotiating with Patty Murray (on behalf of the Democratic Senate) for an agreement to set spending levels for the remainder of FY 2014. It is not hard to understand the political considerations that drive House Republicans: the Democrats have been threatening to shut down the government again, as a means of diverting attention from the Obamacare fiasco. Republican understandably don’t want that to happen. But in policy terms, today’s agreement, while not terrible, represents a step backward.

Spending levels under current law were set by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was the resolution of that year’s epic budget battle. Republicans agreed to increase the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, in exchange for which they supposedly got $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over the following ten years. Because the parties were unable to agree on a different set of cuts (i.e., slower increases), those specified in the sequester portion of the Act kicked in. The sequester had its faults, but it was the Republicans’ biggest domestic policy achievement of recent years. Unless I am mistaken, it represented the most significant restraint on federal spending of the post-World War II era. Under the sequester/BCA, discretionary spending for 2014 was set at $967 billion.

The Democrats hated the sequester, and have been trying to bust it ever since it went into effect. Today, they succeeded. The Ryan/Murray deal pegs FY 2014 spending at $1.012 trillion, which Ryan’s press release described as “about halfway between the Senate budget level of $1.058 trillion and the House budget level of $967 billion.” What Ryan didn’t say is that $967 billion isn’t just the House proposal, it is the discretionary spending limit under current law. The sequester is now out the window.

Republicans did get something in exchange for increasing spending: notably, federal employees will have to increase their pension contributions. But we can say goodbye to the $2.1 trillion in spending cuts that the GOP trumpeted following the 2011 Budget Control Act. That is the real moral of the story–long-term budget agreements are meaningless. Typically, minuscule spending cuts up front are augmented by major cuts in the out-years. But the reality is that the out-years never come. No Congress can bind a future Congress, and political will to reduce spending is always in short supply. Consequently, any spending deal is meaningless, except insofar as it applies to the current year or next year’s spending. Beyond that, all claims to have cut government spending are fatuous.

We will probably have more to say about today’s agreement–which, of course, needs to clear the House to become effective–as more details become available.

UPDATE: A number of observers are praising today’s deal as a “compromise.” Patty Murray set the tone: “‘Compromise has been a dirty word” in Washington, D.C., Murray complained in an evening news conference, but “we have broken through the partisanship and the gridlock.” But wait! The 2011 Budget Control Act was itself a compromise. The $967 billion discretionary spending limit was a compromise, just two years ago. So why should a higher spending number now be lauded as a “compromise”? How about if we reduce spending by another $50 billion, to $917 billion? That would be a compromise too, wouldn’t it? But somehow that isn’t the sort of compromise that is ever entertained in Washington.

That's not really a counter argument to anything I've said. Other than "nuh uh."

That's because I don't respect your opinion on this topic. It's meaningless to me. My argument in this discussion is with the Republicans who are willing to undo conservative strides and gut the sequester to get spending cuts 10 years from now. The idea of a democrat being concerned about the delicate economy is a joke given the damage Obamacare is doing. And that's without discussing the laughable minimum wage hike they're trying to pull off. No thanks, don't care to chase your tail for you in this discussion.

This is NOT about compromises or some future cuts or anything remotely of the sort. This is simply about what is the LEAST BAD deal that can be struck to avoid a shutdown battle. Period. .

No shit. The Dems should have stuck them for more concessions because a shutdown would put the spotlight on the Republicans. If Republicans are smart they will shut up and sign the deal before Democrats wise up.

I'd be happy to have a shut down under these circumstances. I'm hoping Ted Cruz puts the individual mandate back on the table.

I doubt it happens. I think the House will pass this (all Dems and a mix of GOP) and the Senate GOP will raise hell and vote against it insuring it passes with just Dems. That will insulate the GOP (except Ryan) from the budget itself but keep a shutdown distraction off the table. Putting the individual mandate back on the table could be a DISASTER for the GOP. The Dems could JUMP at delaying it and look like the "good guys" for compromising AND help themselves by taking some of the bite out of Obamacare before the election.

I doubt it happens. I think the House will pass this (all Dems and a mix of GOP) and the Senate GOP will raise hell and vote against it insuring it passes with just Dems. That will insulate the GOP (except Ryan) from the budget itself but keep a shutdown distraction off the table. Putting the individual mandate back on the table could be a DISASTER for the GOP. The Dems could JUMP at delaying it and look like the "good guys" for compromising AND help themselves by taking some of the bite out of Obamacare before the election.

Would be a ridiculously stupid move by Cruz.

You sound like somebody who believes that if there were GOP majorities in Congress after the 2014 elections that your life or somebody else's will improve.

It removes all caps and allows spending momentum to continue. The Republicans have completely capitulated in the hope they can kill Obamacare. The estimates are that the debt will rise from $17.5 trillion now to nearly $25 trillion by the next Presidential election. What a joke and a complete betrayal by the scumbags in Washington.

With the removal of easy money, interest rates will rise and costs skyrocket just to service debt.

I feel bad for anyone under 45. You're going to get your asses handed to you. They've kicked the can down the road to 2023-ish.. at least. Rock on!